Cologne, June 28, 2007 Court case on ECBF logo: The French organization,that Mr Loechter & Rosello say to represent,has to withdraw the claim against DFA e.V. and has been condemned to pay the court case expenses. On Thursday, June, 28th, 2007 had been an oral proceeding at the court of Cologne. The subject has been an appealing against the temporary injunction of the “31.Zivilkammer” which commanded the DFA e.V. to remove an ECBF logo from their homepage.The owner of the logo used by DFA e.V. was the ECBF with headquarter in Italy. DFA e.V. has been represented by lawyer Gornickel and Mathias Czaya, accompanied by Mrs Taddonio as a translator for Italian and English language, because many of the documents DFA e.V presented to the court are copies made from originals which are written in Italian and English language, for instance the registration of the ECBF in Milano, the first time national registration of thelogo made in Italy on 1978 by Enrico Campagnoli, the copy of the registration of the design logo at OAMI from December, 27th, 2006 and some more.Court chairman Mr Kehl opened the session and declared:1: The court cannot see the necessity for an urgency in this case because the battle between the both ECBF is existing for a much longer time and is not a new case. The “French organization ECBF” argumented that they detected the logo on DFA e.V. internet page on April, 13th, 2007.According to German law the urgency is a must for a temporary injunction.2: The language at the court is German. Many documents presented by both parties are in english, french and italian language.3: The court is aware from the documents that there is a flaming war between the two ECBF and the chairman declared that the court is not willing to decide in the way of an urgency sentence who is the right one but he follows the argument that the registration of the French ECBF had never been checked by a court. There should be a court decision in the future without urgency between the two ECBF maybe in France or Italy because these organisations are not part of the German law.4: The chairman said that is not allowed to judge a "substitute war" by German law which is the case here because the DFA e.V. is a substitute in this case. The chairman mentioned a higher court sentence (Oberlandesgerichtsurteil) where a manufacturer of furniture detected in internet a bargain from a reseller page who used a copyrighted name.5: Chairman judge Kehl explained: If the court would have known all the details and circumstances in this case they would never in lifetime had done a temporary injunction against the DFA e.V. .At this point it has been clear for me the the court feels being misused by Loechter & Rosello.The chairman suggested lawyer Obermöller to withdraw his request for keeping the temporary injunction alive or the court will make a sentence which will produce higher costs. Laywer Obermöller went to the "witness of present" Rosello who had to wait outside the room for a discussion.It is interesting because the legal representative of the French organization is the president according to the statutes and not by the general secretary and the good question of the day has been why is Rosello enabled to decide without the knowledge or above the head of the president how to handle a court case. Loechter is being said to have no money to visit the court of Cologne although he lives only 50 kilometers nearby.After 10 minutes lawyer Obermöller entered the court room and declared to the chairman judge Kehl that he withdraws his request.The judge dictated to a voice recorder that the claimant withdraws his request and that the claimant had to pay the costs. I estimate the costs in total 6000-7000 Euro. The costs of our lawyer are 2334,78 Euro.The only one visitor at the court had been Burkhard P. Heid from Luxembourg who reported on his internet page www.cb-radio.de a detailed press article.Mathias CzayaECBF Vice President